andrew,
thanks for your comments. they do, however, make me feel
even more disappointed and distressed.
i am sitting here absolutely shaking and almost in tears
i am that upset by the content of your message.
please therefore, and i really really have to emphasise
this: please refrain from researching the TNG lists
for information on how things work in TNG.
alternatively, if you _do_ wish to continue to contact the people
who are on the list please let me know and i will unsubscribe from
the tng-users and tng-technical lists.
basically, TNG has remained static because there is no
funding for its developers. to hear that samba has
corporate sponsors that pay for TNG's work to be duplicated
is very, very distressing for me.
especially as i know that i can make and have made a significant
difference to the speed at which development takes place - an
order of magnitude increase.
now, if samba has more money then of course it's going to
move forward - that's the way things work!
so please, let me know which way you wish to play this.
if you value the input from the people on the tng mailing
lists, please let me know and i will unsubscribe so that
you can continue to speak with them.
if you can get those corporate sponsors to contact me and
pay me money, i will help you out.
if none of these things can occur, please, unless it is
along the lines of "hi i have a question for you and also
what is your address, i have someone who can pay you money
to answer the question", please please please refrain from
contacting me.
i'm very sorry,
luke.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 01:37:35PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> > andrew, by the way:
> >
> > i'm v. pleased to see that you _are_ making progress, i wish
> > that you were spending your time on TNG development to move
> > that forward as much as you are on getting samba "up to speed".
>> While you may find this disappointing, I do not consider myself a TNG
> developer, and do not intend to contribute to the TNG project directly
> in the foreseeable future.
>> I develop Samba because it helps me in the things I do, and I don't have
> time to develop Samba-TNG at the same time. However, as I have shown I
> am very interested in ensuring that there is active communication of
> ideas, of important research (see my mail on trusted domains and
> netlogon) and in allowing 'dualing samba' installations between the two
> development teams.
>> In particular, I am interested in getting some form of pluggable RPC
> module functionality into Samba HEAD, hence our earlier developments. I
> firmly believe that if the TNG project is to survive it must interact
> much more closly with HEAD, as an addition rather than a replacement.
>> Finally, you seem to be of the opinion that HEAD is somehow in the dark
> ages - and that by simple adoption of Samba-TNG's work it would
> magically become a complete NT server. Nothing could be further from
> the truth.
>> Samba HEAD is moving forward in important ways, well in advance of
> Samba-TNGs efforts. While the focus is often on areas closely
> associated with Samba's various corporate sponsors, we have already
> incorporated most of Samba-TNG's more useful features.
>> Printing in particular comes to mind, as does the constant efforts at
> getting smbd's fileserver code in a better, more compliant shape. We
> also now sport pluggable passdb modules and selectable auth modules
> (allowing a similar thing to TNGs replaceable netlogond/samrd). These
> allow development of replacements in a much more 'lightweight' manner
> than the TNG solution.
>> Furthermore, Samba HEAD's support for Active Directory, NTSTATUS
> (outside RPC) and Unicode clients is unmatched in TNG. Other efforts
> that were formally 'TNG stuff' (like winbindd) now have much better
> internal structure and are under much more active maintenance.
>> Some of these features have taken time to move across - things like
> trusted domains really only could happen with my new auth subsystem,
> while others just are not priorities. Finally, time spent rewriting
> these features isn't wasted - the replacement of BOOL with NTSTATUS is
> occurring this way, as well as the 'gradual raising of standards' that
> you found so painful.
>> Andrew Bartlett
>> --
> Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au> Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org> Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net>http://samba.orghttp://build.samba.orghttp://hawkerc.net
--
----------------------------------------------------------
this message is private, confidential, and is intented for
the specified recipients only. if you received, altered,
deleted, modified, destroyed or interfered with the
contents of this message, in whole or in part, please
inform the sender (that's me), immediately.
if you, the recipient, reply to this message, and do not
then receive a response, please consider your reply to have
been lost or deliberately destroyed: i *always* acknowledge
personal email received. please therefore take appropriate
action to ensure effective communication.
thank you.